respond

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the effect of each action: 'approve' allows, 'approve_all' allows similar future operations, 'deny' rejects, and 'redirect' stops current operation and provides new instructions. This is transparent, though it omits details like session persistence or side effects beyond the immediate action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and followed by a clean bulleted list of actions. No word is wasted, and the structure makes the action semantics easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the main behaviors and action semantics. It lacks details about return values or what happens after the action, but for a control tool of this scope, it is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful parameter semantics by elaborating on the 'action' enum values and specifying that 'message' is required for 'redirect'. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'How to respond' and helpful for correct usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Respond to a permission request or send new instructions to Claude Code.' It lists four distinct actions that differentiate it from sibling tools like chat, interrupt, and get_output, making its role unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool—when responding to a permission request or sending new instructions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving some differentiation implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.